by Tracy Borman

Borman’s Anne Boleyn & Elizabeth I: The Mother and Daughter Who Forever Changed British History unfortunately disappoints. While promising in the “Introduction” to illuminate the connections between this famous mother-daughter pairing, Borman falls short. The two never had much of a direct relationship because of Anne’s execution when Eliabeth was only two years old. Of course, Anne (rather her legacy) had an impact on Elizabeth but Borman’s attempts to draw a continuous link between their lives was very forced. The speculation that emerges weakens the connections and ultimately the confidence the reader has in the text.

The second biggest drawback in the eyes of this reviewer was again, seeded in the promises of the “Introduction.”  Borman assures us she will be revealing new insights—it does not happen.  While rehashing material thoroughly covered by many historians, the author presents no new interpretations and any new perspectives come from speculation wrapped up in attempts to sound like new insights.  Phrases including such words as ‘likely’ and ‘perhaps’ offer no proof. Seriously, Borman’s conjectures weaken the book’s credibility. In fact, the speculative language was so irritating, this reviewer picked a random set of pages (113 to 119) to scan for lack of substantial evidence.  For an expansion on this, see below. While speculation, based on historical cues and facts, is a part of biography, Borman so overused it here with Elizabeth’s emotional connection to her mom via symbolism and actions, the narrative suffered.  

Another book-wide issue that was evident in this sampling of pages was the repetitive claims that Elizabeth paid ‘tribute’ to her mother in an assortment of ways throughout her life (one great example is the The Chequer’s Ring see https://elizregina.com/tag/chequers-ring/  in the entry “Elizabeth:  Her Mother’s Memory for a thorough explanation of the artifact), and the ‘influence’ Anne had on her child (when said youngster was raised in an environment where her mother’s name was not allowed to be mentioned) made the book feel tedious.

While there are anemic threads of the themes of power and survival, religion and politics, Borman does focus on the ideas of imagery and gender. These two women were functioning in a time of patriarchal society and navigated dangers as best they could:  Anne with wit; Elizabeth with shrewdness; both with charisma.  

Borman’s writing was accessible with fundamental historical context, if not very scholarly rigorous. She does cite many passages if from secondary sources (an example is page 86 when she quoted Weir who in turn quoted Ives) and includes many primary sources in her bibliography. While Anne Boleyn & Elizabeth I has a fascinating subject at its core, it fails to deliver a compelling or original exploration of the mother-daughter connection that supposedly “forever changed British history.” For seasoned Tudor enthusiasts, the book offers little beyond a surface-level review of familiar material.

Analysis of Sampling Pages 113-119

Proof from page 113 (I’m trying to ignore the idea of how emotional it would have been for Elizbeth to visit her mother’s former homes—if she had visited them) that each year Elizabeth became more referent of her mother’s memory.  It has mostly been concluded that Elizabeth knew better than to mention her mother’s name as a child (Borman even reminds us of this on page 116 and Henry VIII was still imprisoning Boleyn relatives as reported on page 117) so one would be suspect that was proof of reverence nor are there any contemporary reports of how she honored her mother as a child.

Page 115 did not convince me that Elizabeth’s gift to her loving step-mom, Katherine Parr, was a compliment to her mother’s memory with the blue cloth (color for France) and for-get-me-nots. Even using the word ‘perhaps’ does not suggest that it was made for Anne nor did we have proof that Elizabeth “would cherish and honour for the rest of her life” Anne’s memory.

More of this speculative language on page 117 –we know there are no jewels left from Anne Boleyn but Elizabeth’s were so similar in a portrait that it had to be a tribute to her late mother. Maybe they were still in fashion? It was only 10 years after her mother’s death.  How is that for speculation? 

Page 119–Seriously, we are to believe that because Elizabeth had tapestries on her walls which were a ‘visual reminder of Christine de Pizan’s work’ it showed “how greatly she revered her mother’s memory.” 

Random Comments:

Page 2 when implied that Anne would have ruled—she would still have only been a consort never a regina, a reigning queen.

Page 40 Borman, with no citation, states that Mary Boleyn had a disabled child and Anne would not allow it to be at court. 

Must disagree that Elizabeth did not look as much like her dad as she did her grandfather as stated on page 106. See  https://elizregina.com/2013/04/30/the-lions-grandcub-conclusion/ for further discussion and compelling evidence. And one other characteristics that were assigned similar to Anne, musical interest and ability, ignored the talents of Henry VIII.

Page 147 Elizabeth moving to Whitehall, a formal royal palace, was a “fitting tribute to the ambitions that Anne had cherished for her unborn child.” Yeah, well Anne thought it was a boy, hoped for a boy and so he would be king.  Why would Elizabeth as queen moving to the royal palace be proof of a tribute to her mom?  But she was astute politically enough to know not to remove her mother’s remains from the tower chapel?  Wouldn’t that be a better tribute than moving to the royal residence or having tapestries in her palace?

Good Lord!  Henry VIII, Edward VI nor Mary stayed in the Tower very often. It would have been more personal for her then the added fact her mom stayed there. 

Once again, seen on page 173, she is inspired by her desire to honor her late mother, “Elizabeth had created a tightly knit court in which almost all principal members were related by ties of blood, marriage or friendship.”  Well, the Tudor clan was pretty much extinct so that would be blood by Boleyns.